|
 |
CASES $900,000 Recovery for Victims of Motorcycle Accident $900,000 Recovery for Victims of Motorcycle Accident David and Carlos are best friends. On September
9th, 1997 they where returning on David’s motorcycle from running errands.
With David driving, they where traveling east on Coral Way. As they approached
the intersection of Columbus Boulevard in Coral Gables, they noticed a car inching
westward from the stop sign at the intersection. David blinked the high beams
and During the prosecution of David’s and Carlos’
case, we argued that the driver of the automobile failed to yield the right
of way when he entered the intersection of Coral Way and Columbus Boulevard.
The defendant driver defended the case on a number of grounds: that David was
speeding, based During discovery the observations made by the
independent witness to police at the scene evaporated. We were also able to
demonstrate that although the toxicology report showed alcohol in the systems
of both David and Carlos, David, the driver, had an alcohol level well below
the legal limit. The deposition testimony of defendant’s accident reconstruction
expert proved key to defendant’s position that the layout of the intersection
was part of the problem and that David could have avoided the accident. Through
the Association of Trial
$600,000 Recovery - Auto Accident - Rental Car Our client was a passenger in a rental car that was rented by her husband while they visited Miami from their home country. The husband listed himself as the only would be driver of the car on the rental car application. He also purchased the supplemental liability policy that was offered by the rental car company. On the day of the accident, the husband was suffering from a migraine and did not feel well enough to drive. Not feeling well, he asked his adult son to drive. Unfortunately, the son got into an accident for which he was mostly at fault. As a result of the accident, our client was seriously injured. The injuries to our client included a complex pelvic fracture and complications thereof. Our position against the rental car company rested on 3 theories of liability:
Under the above facts, we argued, any statutory limits on any recovery would not be applicable. In addition, under the spoliation of evidence theory not even the limit of the supplemental policy would be applicable as the rental car company is directly responsible for its own active negligence. The case was settled for $600,000.
$587,500 Recovery - Homeowner Property Claim The insured came home one night to discover that a plumbing pipe in the upstairs bathroom had burst inundating the house with water causing damage to the structure of the home, including subsequent collapse, and ruining many of the insured's contents. The insured was displaced from her home as the house was unlivalbe. A claim was filed with the insured's homeowner's insurance company and th insurance company assigned and adjuster to the claim. Eventually, the insurance company paid the insured in the neighborhood of $250,000 on the loss and refused to renew the insured's policy. Unsatisfied, the insured retained our services. Through experts we established that the insurance company's valuation of the claim was woefully inadequate. But equally important, we established improprieties in the claims handling process. It was the insurance company's adjuster that referred a general contractor and a public adjuster to the insured. the insurance company adjuster insisted to the insured, a single mother who was in the midst of a divorce, that this was the only way to resolve the claim. We showed that the contractor and the public adjuster were, apparently siblings, and associates of the insurance company adjuster. This trio went about conspiracy to defraud the insured in an attempt to benefit themselves and the insurance company. Not only was the calm negligently handled by this trio but they charged excessive fees and extorted the insured. Toward the end of the trio's involvement, the contractor and public adjuster demanded that the insurance company adjuster be paided an additional $18,000 by the insured for any more monies to be paid on the claim. In the face of the above evidence, the insurance company settled the case for an additional $587,500. Our client was very happy.
$525,000 Recovery - Auto Accident - Wrongful Death Our clients were driving westbound on State Road 90 in Miami, Florida on their way to Marco Island to vacation with family. Husband driver, his wife, their baby, and our clients’ cousin, were along for the trip. Tragically, the family never made it to Marco Island. As the family approached the intersection of Southwest 137th Avenue and 8th Street, an SUV traveling southbound on Southwest 137th Avenue t-boned our clients’ vehicle on the passenger side resulting in the death of the 21 year old wife. The wife was survived by her husband, their baby, and her parents. The driver of the SUV claimed that the accident was caused by the husband driver speeding and running a red light. This, he argued, was supported by the traffic homicide investigation completed by the police. The police cited the husband driver for running a red light and causing the accident. The driver of the SUV also relied on the statement given to police, as summarized in the traffic homicide report, by an independent witness in support of their position. The husband driver held firm that the driver of the SUV was the one who ran the red light. We were retained to represent the estate of the deceased wife, the husband driver, the baby, and the deceased wife’s parents just 2 months prior to the statute of limitation’s expiration. Prior to retaining our firm, two prominent plaintiff’s firms in Miami had turned down our clients’ case. Once retained, our investigation revealed a different story. Rather than relying on the witness statements summarized in the traffic homicide report, we sought out the actual tape recordings of the witness’ statements. After listening to the tapes, it became apparent that the witnesses were not certain as to who ran the red light and were not exactly sure as to what happened. Most of the thoughts offered by the witnesses were of “after-the-fact.” Our subsequent deposition of the main witness revealed many inconsistencies in the witness’ testimony which brought his credibility into question. We also discovered through discovery that the driver of the SUV was on his cell phone and lost at the time of the accident. With the above discoveries and the use of an accident reconstruction expert, an economist, and an expert on the effects of cell phone use while driving, we were able to secure a $525,000 settlement at mediation that will serve as the foundation for the baby’s future.
$200,000 Recovery - Business Insurance Loss - Fire Sprinkler Our clients in this case are owners of a large import-export company in Miami. In October of 2000 our clients’ arrived at their office to discover that the indoor sprinkler system had gone off during the night resulting in substantial damage to the warehouse and inventory. They promptly filed a claim with their insurance carrier. The insurance carrier began its investigation which concluded with an inadequate damages valuation. Our clients, which we had previously represented in another insurance matter, retained us to assist in this claim. We immediately retained the necessary experts and armed with these opinions we were able to negotiate on behalf of our client a recovery significantly greater than the figure that the insurance company had placed on the loss.
$167,500 Recovery - Auto Accident Our client and her two kids were involved in an intersection automobile collision with a 15-year old driver causing the accident. Our clients suffered numerous injuries. A settlement was reached at mediation. The settlements for the minor children were structured so as to provide a foundation for the children’s future.
$131,000 Recovery- Auto Accident - Rental Car Liability Our clients consisted of the mother, daughter, and daughter-in-law which were involved in an intersection collision with a rental car. Our clients suffered numerous soft-tissue type injuries and the daughter-in–law suffered various injuries including an open-wound of the gum which required oral surgery. The rental car company argued that the daughter-in-law failed to wear her seatbelt and that this was the actual cause of her injuries. We were able to establish that the daughter-in-law was pregnant at the time of the accident and was under direction of her OB/GYN not to wear a seatbelt. In addition, we were able to establish that not only had the driver of the rental car failed to stop at the stop sign, but that the rental car had faulty brakes that contributed to the driver’s inability to stop to avoid the accident. The case was settled at mediation and the clients were happy with the result.
$110,000 Recovery - Life Insurance Claim In June of 1997 Reina’s husband unexpectedly passed away leaving a five year old son, Ray. At the time of his death, Reina’s husband carried a life insurance policy through his employer, leaving his son as the primary beneficiary and his wife as secondary beneficiary. Shortly after the death, Reina and her family notified the employer and life insurance company about the tragedy. One and half years later Reina had not yet received one cent from the life insurance company. As a single working mom of a young boy she suffered not only from the death of her husband but from her financial situation. In March of 1999 she retained our office. Clearly, Reina had become a victim of an insurance company that subjected her to a complete run-around. Shortly after we became involved, we persuaded the insurance company to set aside many of the issues that they were claiming existed prior to our representation. Prior to our involvement, the insurance company had initially taken the position with Reina that no insurance policy even existed. Shortly after we became involved, we where able to prove that an insurance policy did indeed exist. Thereafter, the insurance company took the position that although a policy existed, the face amount of the policy was only $10,000.000. We proved that the husband had elected to purchase a supplemental policy for an additional $100,000.00. In October of 1999, the case was resolved for $110,000.00. A guardianship was established for the minor which will hopefully pay for Ray’s education. To that end, Ray recently got his first computer with some of the settlement proceeds. We continue to represent Reina and Ray in guardianship proceedings on a pro bono basis.
$102,000 - Fall Down - Fractured Ankle In August, 2001, our client, a 39 year old single mother, was visiting the home of an acquaintance. Unbeknownst to her, the homeowner had just finished using a degreaser on the outside patio surface. Our client stepped onto the backyard patio immediately losing her footing resulting in a fall. As a result of the fall, she sustained a fracture of the right ankle requiring surgery and placement of two pins. She incurred approximately $14, 500.00 in medical bills and missed about one month of work. The insurance company took the position that there was no liability on the part of the insured. We showed that the insured failed to warn our client of the condition of the patio floor and failed to properly dry the floor prior to allowing guests onto the area. The case settled for the policy limits prior to litigation. Our client was very happy with the pre-suit settlement.
$101,000 - Fall Down - Fractured Ankle In October, 2000, Mercedes, a resident of the Dominican Republic, was visiting her son at his home in Broward County. The morning after she arrived, Mercedes fell down the steps of the house resulting in a left ankle fracture. Mercedes underwent surgery where two screws and a plate where placed at the site of the fracture. The insurance company took the position that there was no liability on the part of the insured, Mercedes’ son. We argued that on the evening before the accident, the insured had washed the rug covering the steps of the stairwell and when Mercedes went down the steps the following morning , the steps where still damp and slippery from the cleaning and that the insured had failed to warn her of this condition. The case settled at pre-suit mediation. Our client was very happy with the quick resolution.
$100,000 Recovery - Commercial Insurance Policy - Fire Loss Miguel, our client, owned a small coffee packing plant. The plant was damaged as a result of a fire. The fire also damaged a company truck and a personal vehicle. Miguel retained a public adjuster. Claims were filed with the two relevant insurance companies. Both insurance companies where involved in an arson investigation of the claims. Shortly after it became clear that the claims process was becoming adversarial, Miguel retained our firm. The insurance companies retained experts and conducted examinations under oath. With the help of our own experts, we succeeded in convincing the insurance companies to extend coverage for the loss. With the settlement money in hand Miguel has been able to get back to business.
$100,000 Policy Limit Recovery - Dog Bite Case On July 28th, 2002 our client was assisting his next door neighbor with repairs to the neighbor's house. The neighbor was dog-sitting an American Bulldog for a friend and the dog was loose in the yard where the repairs where taking place without consequence. Our client completed the repairs and left the premises. Later that night our client realized that he left a tool in the neighbor's yard. He entered the yard at which time he was mauled by the dog. Our client suffered numerous bites including a laceration to his left foot which required surgery. The foot injury became infected and became a chronic wound. Although the homeowner was not the owner of the dog, we obtained a policy limits settlement from the homeowner.
$100,000 Policy Limits - Recovery For Intoxicated Pedestrian Our client was crossing the street when he was struck by defendant's automobile resulting in serious injuries. Defendant maintained, based on the medical records, that our client was intoxicated at the time of the accident. We countered that defendant could have avoided the accident and even accounting for our client's negligence, our client's claim had a value in excess of the policy limits. Our client was happy with the policy limits settlement in light of a strong case for the defendant.
$100,000 Policy Limits Recovery - Auto Accident - UM Claim Our client was the victim of a hit and run accident. Our client was driving her rented 2004 Kia north on State Road 997 at Southwest 12th Street in Miami, FL. when she was rear-ended by a phantom vehicle and forced onto the southbound lane getting subsequently struck by a third vehicle. The phantom vehicle fled the scene of the accident. As a result of the accident, our client sustained a perforated intestine which required surgical intervention. Although we were able to obtain a quick recovery of our client’s UM policy, we were faced with a significant subrogation lien that was claimed by our client’s health insurer. The amount of the claimed lien was $42,141.35. After much discussion with the health insurer over the applicable relevant law and much negotiating of the lien, we were able to settle the lien for a substantially reduced figure. Our client was very happy with the resolution of the claim and in our ability to significantly reduce the subrogation lien and therefore maximize her net recovery.
$100,000 Policy Limits Recovery - Auto Accident Our client was injured in an intersection collision. She suffered a fractured ankle as a result of the accident. In spite of the fact that the at-fault driver had a stop sign, the insurance company for the driver attempted to argue that our client was at-fault for the accident. Nonetheless, we got the insurance company to tender the policy limits. We were also able to reduce our client’s health insurance subrogation lien substantially letting the client net a recovery which made a difference in her life. Our client was very happy with the result.
$100,000 Policy Limits Recovery - Auto Accident Our client was a victim of another car losing control and crossing over the median colliding directly with our client’s vehicle. Unfortunately, our client sustained several injuries most prominently to her knees. The at-fault driver’s insurance company’s initial low-ball offer was based on their position that their driver, who was pregnant, lost consciousness right before the accident. As such, they argued, there was no negligence on the part of their driver as the accident was caused by a medical condition. Fortunately for our client, we were able to establish that the at-fault driver was on notice of her medical condition as she had passed-out twice before while driving due to her pregnancy. In light of this evidence and our client’s injuries, the at-fault driver’s insurance company finally tendered the policy limits. Our client was very happy.
Six Figure Settlement - Bad Faith - Above Policy Limits Recovery Our client was involved in a hit and run accident wherein he injured a shoulder. For the following 5 months our client was unrepresented in his dealings with his uninsured motorist insurance company, with his insurance company (“the carrier”) having unfettered access to him. The carrier obtained a statement from our client and processed the claim with our client’s full cooperation and without the advise or representation of counsel. After becoming disillusioned with the way his carrier was handling the claim, our client decided to come see us. Shortly thereafter, we sent a demand to the carrier offering to accept the policy limits of $100,000 as full settlement of the claim. We authorized the carrier to review its own PIP file, including the IMEs our client was requested to submit to under the PIP portion of the policy. Although the doctor who conducted the IME is well known to be defense oriented in his opinions, he concurred with our client’s treating physician and opined that our client needed surgery to the shoulder. We also authorized the carrier to obtain any medical records it wanted. Of course, the PIP file would have contained most of these records. In fact, our client’s PIP and MedPay coverages in the amount of $15,000 had already been exhausted. Our position was that the carrier would not have paid these coverages without having had reviewed the medical records and having found that all of the treatment that our client had received was reasonable and medically necessary. We also included the police report and color copies of photos showing the substantial property damage that our client’s truck sustained. Liability was never or should have never been an issue in this case, as the semi-truck that took a stop sign and pinned our client’s truck into a utility pole never even stopped at the scene after the accident. Our client’s son was a passenger in the truck and witnessed his Dad’s injury. With the demand we also included the MRI reports that were in our possession which showed the seriousness of the injury. At the time that we sent the demand, our client had already incurred more than $45,000 in medical bills. We highlighted this in our demand and we also pointed out that our client was taking all kinds of pain medications, was going to need future treatment, and that he had also received an epidural block to assist with the pain. In light of all of the above information that was in the carrier’s possession, the carrier should have immediately tendered the policy limits. Instead we received a request from the carrier requesting that our client sign
an affidavit stating that he had no other insurance. That executed affidavit
was faxed to the carrier immediately. In the interim, the carrier claimed that
it was trying to obtain medical records to be able to evaluate the claim although
it was abundantly clear that the carrier had more than enough information to
tender the policy limits. The carrier requested an extension of time in which
to respond to our demand which extension request we rejected. Our offer to settle
for the policy limits expired. We then filed a civil remedy notice of insurer
violation with the Florida Department of Insurance. This, in effect, bought
the carrier an additional 60 days in which to “cure” the defect
of not timely tendering the policy limits, by tendering the policy limits. It
also bought the carrier an additional 60 days in which to obtain whatever additional
information it deemed necessary in spite of the fact that the carrier already
had all of the information it needed in order to determine that our client’s
claim was obviously worth more than the policy limits. We then wrote the carrier
reminding them that the 60 day period purchased by the filing of the civil remedy
notice would soon expire and that they could “cure” the defect by
tendering the policy limits. During this entire 60 day period we did not hear
one word from the carrier.
$87,750 Recovery - Fall Down - Broken Arm In early January 2000, our client, Bertha, was asked by friends to help take down Christmas decorations at their home. While helping to take down Christmas decorations from the roof overhang she fell off a ladder, injuring her arm. The insurance company promptly took the position that liability was questionable. We filed suit. Through discovery we were able to prove that our client was asked to remove the Christmas decorations from the roof overhang by the homeowners; that one of the homeowners positioned the ladder in a hedge of plants bordering the front wall of the house under the roof overhang; that our client agreed to help if the homeowners would hold the ladder while our client removed the decorations; that Bertha climbed the ladder as one of the homeowners held the ladder in place; that as our client reached the top of the ladder the homeowner that was holding the ladder was distracted by the other homeowner calling her name; that because of the distraction the homeowner let go of the ladder and that immediately the ladder tilted, giving way, causing our client to fall to the ground. Our client suffered a fracture to the right humerus requiring surgery. Bertha incurred over $17,000.00 in medical bills and lost wages in the amount of approximately $3,000.00. Bertha was very happy with the settlement.
$75,000 Recovery - Work Accident - Right Knee Injury Requiring Arthrosporic Surgery Our client fell while working in a factory in Hialeah. Unfortunately, the employer was not carrying the required workers compensation insurance. The employer was judgment proof. We discovered that there where two other companies doing business from the same premises as the employer. We filed suit against the employer, the two other tenants and the individual person who owned all three companies. During discovery we where able to prove that the two non- employer companies where in control of the premises where our client fell and injured herself. Although the employer carried liability insurance, this accident was excluded as a work related accident. However, the accident was covered under the liability policy of the two non- employers companies. The case settled after we where able to prove that the two non-employer companies exercised control over the subject premises. Through the testimony of a previous employee who was present on the day of the accident we where also able to prove that the defendants where on notice of the deplorable conditions at the factory. Our client incurred approximately $10,000.00 in medical expenses. We were also able to prove that our client would have to be retrained in a different field of work because of her injuries through the use of a vocational rehabilitation expert. The case resolved at mediation.
$65,000 Recovery - Auto Accident - Herniated Disk Raul was involved in an automobile accident when the defendant driver decided to change lanes colliding with our client’s automobile. The automobile that Raul was driving received $950.00 worth of property damage. Raul treated for approximately 5 ½ months with several doctors and was finally diagnosed with herniated disks at C5-C6, C6-C7, and L5-S1. Raul incurred $12,500.00 in medical bills. No claim for lost wages was made.
HMO Coverage - Liver Transplant Maria is a 56 year old woman who came to our office in April 2000 when she received a letter from her HMO carrier denying pre-transplant and transplant services for a liver transplant. The reason given for the denial was that the benefit plan excluded prescription medication coverage and without prescription medication coverage she would not be able to have the transplant. Our office immediately filed suit arguing that although the plan did not cover prescription medication coverage, such coverage was not a condition precedent to coverage for pre-transplant services. At the time of the denial, Maria was already in the middle of the pre-transplant testing. After the commencement of litigation, we where able to convince the HMO of our position and the pre-transplant testing was approved. The case was dismissed and the insurance company paid plaintiff’s attorney fees. Unbelievably, in March of 2001 the HMO again suspended the actual liver transplant based on the same exclusion. We once again filed suit. The HMO carrier once again lifted the suspension after litigation was commenced. Other issues in the case still remain, including plaintiff’s entitlement to attorney fees. Fortunately, Maria finally received the liver transplant and is doing well.
The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisments. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own legal situation. Copyright © 2005 J. P. Gonzales-Sirgo - Florida personal
injury attorneys, motor vehicle accident lawyers and medical malpractice attorneys,
serving Miami, Coral Gables and cities throughout Southern Florida. Lawyer
Websites – Attorney Websites – Law Firm Websites designed by
MegaHunter, Inc. Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Disclaimer: The Florida personal injury, wrongful death, products liability, auto accident and/or other legal information offered herein by J. P. Gonzales-Sirgo, Florida Personal Injury Lawyers, is not formal legal advice nor the formation of an attorney client relationship. Any results set forth herein are based only upon the facts of that particular case and offer no promise or guarantee on the outcome of any case. This site is not intended to solicit clients outside the State of Florida. |
 |
started
to downshift. The driver of the car, nonetheless, attempted a left turn. David
was not able to avoid the accident and a collision occurred. Both David and
Carlos where thrown from the motorcycle and later airlifted to JMH Ryder Trauma
Center with multiple injuries resulting from the accident. Among his injuries,
David suffered a fracture of the left hip. David incurred approximately $60,000.00
in medical bills. Carlos , too, suffered multiple injuries. Among his injuries,
he sustained a closed head injury with a facial fracture and a right ankle fracture.
Carlos incurred approximately $66,000.00 in medical bills.
on
statements made by an independent witness that the motorcycle was traveling
at approximately 85 miles per hour at the time of the collision; that both David
and Carlos were intoxicated at the time of the accident based on the results
present in the toxicology report contained in the hospital records; that the
layout of the subject intersection was negligently designed, raising the Florida
Department of Transportation as a possible Fabre defendant; and that David could
have avoided the accident.
Lawyer’s
(ATLA) deposition bank we obtained previous deposition testimony of defendant’s
accident reconstruction expert. With this in hand, we set out to take an adversarial
video-deposition of the expert. At his deposition , we where able to establish
the following :